Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'must'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • The Consumer Forums: The Mall
    • Welcome to the Consumer Forums
    • FAQs
    • Forum Rules - Please read before posting
    • Consumer Forums website - Post Your Questions & Suggestions about this site
    • Campaign
    • Helpful Organisations
  • CAG Community centre
    • CAG Community Centre Subforums:-
  • Consumer TV and Radio Listings
    • Consumer TV and Radio Listings
  • CAG Library - you need to register to access the CAG library
    • CAG library Subforums
  • Banks, Loans & Credit
    • Bank and Finance Subforums:
    • Other Institutions
  • Retail and Non-retail Goods and Services
  • Work, Social and Community
  • Debt problems - including homes/ mortgages, PayDay Loans
  • Motoring
  • Legal Forums
  • Latest Consumer News

Blogs

  • A Say in the Life of .....
  • Debt Diaries

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


About Me


Quit Date

Between and

Cigarettes Per Day


Cost Per Day


Location

Found 35 results

  1. Devon County County (16 017 119) Decision date: 17th August 2017. Published on the LGO website: 17th November 2017 Vulnerability and bailiff enforcement is a subject that is of great importance and sadly, it is a subject that is very much misunderstood. The LGO have made a number of decisions regarding the 'definition' of vulnerability and the following case is another one where the LGO confirm that a 'vulnerable' debtor must provide evidence to demonstrate how their vulnerability affects their ability to deal with the debt. PS: The following is a shortened copy of the decision. A full copy can be accessed from the link at the foot of the post. Background: (9) Mr B has received 5 penalty charge notices (PCN) for parking offences since 2014. A parking enforcement officer placed two on the car and Mr B received three through the post. On the telephone, Mr B told me that he did not take account of parking laws as he believes there is a law from the year 1600 that means he can’t be fined and so can park anywhere. (16) The Council has said that Mr B first used the words’ vulnerable’ about his wife and him both having Blue Badges on 3 December 2015. (17) The Council said it advised Mr B on 5 July to contact the bailiffs for them to consider his ‘vulnerability’ and for him to provide them with whatever evidence they need to confirm his status as vulnerable. The Council advised Mr B that if the bailiff did deem his to be a vulnerable household the Council would withdraw the warrant and cease activity. (18) The Council said Mr B did not supply the bailiffs with supporting evidence. It has said the blue badge issued to Mr B, shows they have met the criteria of limited mobility to have a blue badge issued but may not necessarily be vulnerable. (19) The Council says that Mr B thinks that his vulnerability means that he is exempt from paying these fines. The Council says it disagrees with Mr B’s interpretation. It considers he is still liable to pay these fines, but any vulnerability means the Council has to consider extra discretion over how these fines are paid, e.g. deferring payment periods, accepting lower instalments until debts paid. (20) The Council has asked Mr B to provide supporting written evidence of his ‘vulnerability’ for it to find out if there are other conditions from which he suffers that may fit his interpretation of vulnerability, e.g. Mental health, depression, post- traumatic stress, at risk of self-harm, inability to understand and engage with the process. The Council says that if Mr B does meet any of these criteria, then it may withdraw the warrants and close the cases. Mr B has not provided supporting evidence. Analysis from the Local Government Ombudsman: (23) Mr B complained a business centre issued the warrants rather than a court and so were invalid. The TEC is the court appointed by the Secretary of State and the Department of Transport to deal with registration of debts arising from penalty charge notices. I can find no fault on this point. (24) Mr B complains the bailiffs did not have the correct warrants. The Council has said the court sends the warrants electronically and so there are no paper copies. For completeness, I will ask the Council to send me its electronic records showing the warrants but I can see no evidence of fault on this point. (25) Mr B believes that under the Taking Control of Goods National Standards 2010, (updated 2015) as soon as he told the bailiff company finds out he is vulnerable (with no explanation) they have to withdraw. He believes that he does not need to provide details of his details of his vulnerability; it is then the Council’s job to prove he isn’t. (26) The Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013, part 2, regulation 10 set out the circumstances in which an enforcement agent may not take control of goods. It says an enforcement agent may not take control of goods of a debtor where a child or vulnerable person is the only person present. The legislation does not give any further guidance about how a vulnerable person is defined. (27) Mr B told the Council he was a vulnerable person. However, he has not explained why he considers he is vulnerable. He considers that it is the Council’s job to prove he is not. (28) It cannot be right that a person can say they are vulnerable and all outstanding debts are written off without them giving further information. If this was the case, then there would be no way for the Council to enforce any debt collection as anybody could claim vulnerability without evidence. I do consider it reasonable for Mr B to explain why he considers himself to be vulnerable. (29) In any case, a vulnerable person still has to pay the fines, but any vulnerability means the Council has to consider extra discretion over how the debtor pays the fines, e.g. deferring payment periods or accepting lower instalments. It should also allow the vulnerable person time to get help and advice. (30) I have found no fault in the Council’s actions. The Council gave Mr B the opportunity to appeal the PCN’s and to appeal to the court. No further recovery action has been taken once he told the bailiffs and Council he is vulnerable. However, I do consider it reasonable for him to give details of his vulnerability if he wants the Council to consider removing the warrants. http://www.lgo.org.uk/decisions/transport-and-highways/parking-and-other-penalties/16-017-119
  2. My elderly aunt went into residential care last week and I want to give myself time to work out what's best to do with the house. She is totally self funded and there's no need to sell. Her CT was paid up front last April for the whole year. I know the property would be exempt CT for a while but all the wording I find on the subject says 'until the house is sold'. Does anyone know if there's a limit on this? If there is can I just let sleeping dogs lie until next year and pick when I get my free six months - or whatever it is. I don't want to apply for a refund of monies already paid only to find I've then exhausted a CT exempt period and them start to charge me double if I can avoid it.
  3. Later this month, the long awaited Mersey Gateway will open to the public. The Mersey Gateway and the Silver Jubilee Bridges will both be tolled. The tolling system is called Merseyflow and will be operated by Emovis who operate the Dartford Crossing. In the same way as the Dartford Crossing, if payment of the toll is not paid by midnight the day after the crossing a Penalty Charge Notice will be issued for the amount of £40 (plus the unpaid toll fee). This sum will be reduced to a discounted rate of £20 if paid within the first 14 days of being issued. If the Penalty Charge Notice has still not been paid after this 28-day period, then the fee that must be paid is increased to £60 if it is paid within the following 14 days. If the Penalty remains unpaid beyond this 42-day period, then the penalty will be registered as a civil debt and if unpaid after another 36 days, recovery action will begin. In the same way as the public can open a Dart Charge account, motorists using the Mersey Gateway will need to open a Merseyflow account. Their website is below https://www.merseyflow.co.uk
  4. Good evening guys.. Hope you are all in good health. I was posted a parking fine by Smart Parking for overstaying the free parking time in North London. I accept this may have been possible, but I put the letter to one side and forgot all about it. I have now received a letter from debt recovery plus reminding me of the outstanding parking fine but is now double the cost :-/ I am willing to pay the fine but I don't think its right I am expected to now pay double the charge. I have tried to pay on line and by phone, but Smart Parking will now not take my payment. Any advise or do I just pay them whatever they decide to demand?
  5. Ryanair has told lawyers acting for a woman claiming compensation that it will no longer accept the jurisdiction of the English courts, in a case that has raised concerns over air passenger delay rights. The claims management company acting for a woman known only as Ms Menditta, who claimed against the Dublin-based Ryanair after a delay in 2015, have been told by the airline that a clause in the airline’s terms and conditions requires disputes to be decided by the Irish courts. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/dec/09/ryanair-says-womans-delay-claim-must-go-through-irish-courts Clause 2.4 of Ryanair's terms and conditions states that contract disputes will normally be subject to the jurisdiction of Irish courts, but until now has rarely invoked that clause. Ryanair has now declared it WILL recognise the jurisdiction of British courts in flight delay compensation cases, but only if customers shun third-party claims firms and approach the airline directly.
  6. In 2013 I had to give up work due to chronic ill health, I notified HMRC of my changed circumstances and my tax credits claim ended. Around six months later, I received a letter from HMRC stating I had been over paid by £3,500. I called them and after explaining my circumstances they agreed to suspend repayment, they didn't say for how long, just to expect further contact in future. I have since heard nothing from them. About a month ago, out of the blue I received a letter from a debt collector agency called LCS demanding repayment, I contacted HMRC and on asking why they had not contacted me directly, I was told it was normal practice to pass debt over to a DCA who would then pass it back to them on receiving proof of inability to pay and I could expect this to happen each year. After receiving a further two threatening letters from LCS, the last being a “notice of further action” I again contacted HMRC. This time they claimed to have contacted me a number of times and as I had failed to respond they had put recovery in the hands of LCS. They flatly refused to deal with me saying I must deal only with LCS. I have read posts on here advising never to contact a DCA. I'm confused and anxious as to what I can to do if HMRC refuse to deal with it. I'm very worried about this debt and its beginning to affect my already poor health. I hope someone can advise me on the best course of action.
  7. I am approaching 68 with no savings or assets following a business collapse that also included our house being repossessed. Our sole income is my Pension Credit entitlement, and we now live in rented accommodation covered by HB. With the help of CAG I have so far been able to have 3 out of 7 related debts written off. I have been asked at intervals for I&E statements. I have always felt very strongly that these matters are nobody else’s business, so have not filled-in their forms but have responded simply re-stating our poor circumstances in general and referring back to the existing arrangement, which has then always been accepted. I have included I&E statements twice however when requesting reconsideration when a write-off request has been turned down. Responses however were condescending and disagreeable, peppered with “we think this ..”, and “we feel that …” comments, and saying we should try to save on this and on that because study-A and study-B showed that typically a couple only needs to spend £X on food, £Y on power, and an entire alphabet of “onlys” on other categories of daily living needs. These responses however had no connection at all with the real world, which only reinforces my firm belief that providing an I&E is simply digging a deeper hole because it can always be selectively deconstructed and made to prove that black is white. Which brings me to my question. A DCA recently asked for an I&E. I replied reasonably that for given circumstances I was unable to revise our existing arrangement which I could maintain. I have just heard back, “requiring” me to comply and setting a 14 day time limit on a letter that was already 8 days old when it arrived which is a very underhand and nasty stress-ploy also seen from others multiple times. I will be sending a robust reply, but first want to check whether any changes have taken place that now oblige someone to provide an I&E when asked to do so. Importantly, if this is NOT the case can someone please point me toward any related code of conduct or other source to which I can refer, pointing out that they are not entitled to demand an I&E. If there is already a suitable form of words somewhere that I can use, or if anyone more knowledgeable could find a moment to put a definitive sentence or two together with suitable content that I can incorporate in my reply, I should be additionally grateful. With all thanks.
  8. This was posted earlier today in the Media Section of the site http://renegadeinc.com/the-bailiff-racket/
  9. Hello there! First time post for me so apologies if I miss something! I received a letter from Robinson Way for an alleged barclaycard debt, of which I sent a CCA request enclosing the £1, which they banked. I received a letter saying that they would request the details from their client and it would be on hold until they received the details. Subsequently I've now received a letter saying: "Further to your recent request for a copy agreement on the above account, we are unable to obtain this form the original creditor as this request must be formally made to us in writing. Please accept our apologies for any inconvenience caused by us not informing you of this requirement at the time of your initial request. If you still require the agreement please submit your request in writing to us at the address above and we will process it as quickly as possible. Please note that the £1.00 fee normally required for a CCA request will be waived on this occasion. In the meantime, we have placed your account on a 30 day delay to allow you enough time to submit a written request. If we do not hear back from you within this time we will assume you no longer require this information and your account activity will resume." I sent the CCA request with the enclosed payment to the same address on the letter?! It is now 17 days since the date of my original CCA request. I'm not sure which way to respond to this - any help would be greatly appreciated. Many thanks!
  10. Hi, I was called in for a compliance interview in June 2011. I admitted I saved all my DLA up for something that would help me medically (I did have savings over and above limit for this reason). I get higher rate on both components of DLA. I was told I could spend my money on the said medical aid within a few days and they wouldn't consider this deprivation of money. I am paying the overpayment and have been for quite a while. But what I cannot ascertain is whether they will take things further. I have a lot of physical and mental health issues, but I can't seem to get over it until I know the case is closed, but that's something I never managed to get them to say. I did offer to pay a lump sum off my debt and debt management contacted dwp and they said I don't have to pay anything other than the £10.80 pw. they also told me I have no named investigator that I could talk to. Hence I have no one to discuss the matter with and still feel at a loss. Should I expect further letters from them? Do they just turn up at my house? How can I know for sure, I got tired of asking if things were over as they just won't answer. It's still too much on my mind. Thanks for reading.
  11. Roll Up, Roll Up... One and all... This is a new record by any means... Someone on another site posted this... The letter is comical, Not for the fact its a debt but for more the amount.... [ATTACH=CONFIG]60057[/ATTACH] Bravo RBS, Bravo...
  12. Hi everyone, I need some help fast!, To sum my story up this is a letter I wrote to Dell yesterday (one month after receiving a brand new laptop and 3 weeks after I reported the breakdown. "Official letter of complaint for faulty goods and refund refusal I bought a laptop from you on 27th August 2015 and it was received by me on 4th September. I paid £429. On Thursday 24th September the Internet was shutting off at will, I contacted my provider Plusnet on my old computer, obviously the connection was fine as I was chatting to them online. Upon chatting with your technical advisor XXX for 2 hours on Friday 25th September, it was conceded that the Internet hardware had a fault and needed to be repaired. XXXXX said she would book a pick up on Monday and the collection would take place Tuesday 26th September. I was to expect a call between 5-6pm Monday evening to confirm pick up on Tuesday of the laptop. I received no call, so I contacted XXX XX again. She told me the booking did not go through and to expect a call Tuesday for pick up Wednesday. I informed XXXXX that I would give Dell another chance but it had to be Wednesday as I wasn't available from Thursday to Sunday. I also told her I am on holiday in a couple of weeks so I want the laptop fixed by that time. Wednesday came and the booking did not go through again and apparently UPS would not review it until 4.30pm. They called me in the evening and said it would be collected Thursday. By this time, I was understandably angry so I asked for it to be picked up after the call the same day (Wednesday). They refused, so I contacted XXXXXX and asked for a refund. I was told she was waiting for a "review" of my refund! So it came to be that I gave Dell another chance, still very angry, that they could pick up the computer Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday next week but I want the refund by Friday as this is my right. Friday 2nd October I was offered a new computer in 7-10 working days! No, I wanted a refund. I was then told the "earliest" Dell could collect was Wednesday 7th October. I said this was the latest date as I wouldn't be at home and you would refund within 3-5 working days. Monday 5th October (a week after the original collection booking) it apparently was passed over to a "manager". Later that day XXXX (XXXX manager) offered for an engineer to come and visit and "fix" the laptop. Tuesday 6th October XXX wrote again and said refund isn't an option she can provide! She was sending up to "higher management"! Under the Sale of Goods Act 1979 (as amended) goods you supply must be fit for purpose. As there was a problem with the goods when I bought them, I requested that you pick up and repair the goods at no cost to me. I gave you two chances to do so, you have refused my refund and offered me a new computer and engineer, although I clearly stated I wanted a refund. I have all the e-mails sent by XXXX and XXXX and all I have sent including the original chat log confirming that there was a hardware problem with the laptop. The laptop failed within two weeks of receipt, the repair options were handled really inefficiently and my refund request was replaced with "other" offers. There should not be a problem, by law you owe me a refund and passing it around the Dell office is not making the problem go away. A copy of this letter will be included in a report to Trading Standards with all the relevant data. Please respond within 5 working days of this letter." After receiving this, a very arrogant man called me and basically talked down to me (he was very sure of himself). He told me an engineer would be coming tomorrow to attempt to repair the laptop. I told him I had given them many chances to repair it and now I want a refund. He refused point blank and sais that was not going to happen and they should be able to attempt one repair. I said I would take this to Trading Standards and if I have to, to court, he very arrogantly said "go ahead with that sir". He was actually egging me on to do it! Am I in the right thinking I do not have to accept a repair if I don't want to, and ask for a refund? If so, does anyone know what to suggest I do next? This has been going on too long now and I anxious for a solution. Please help!
  13. "The national interest must come ahead of human rights" David Cameron. But is not human rights central to our national interest? Every year the British Government sell £4 billion in arms to one of the worlds worst human rights abusers, Saudi Arabia. Currently a 17 year old Saudi male faces public beheading followed by crucifixion because he has been found guilty of being involved in sedition in taking part in a human rights riot. David Cameron's Government cut a secret deal with Saudi Arabia last month to be elected onto the United Nations 'Human Rights Council'. Saudi Arabia publicly beheaded over 60 of it's own citizens last year year, flogging, up to 1000 lashes at a time, is common. Woman under penalty of imprisonment are not allowed to drive. The justification for David Cameron in turning a blind eye to these and other human rights abuses is 'We share valuable intelligence with them of people who want to harm both regimes'. As well as Saudi Arabia Britain has just completed trade deals with one of the most prolific Human Rights Abusers. That being China. An example wil be live organ donation/ harvesting from their prison population. ( Falun Gong) The response from the Chinese Government states that the prisoners agree to it. And the UK Government accepts that response What can be more harmful to our reputation on human rights when we ignore them in the name of national security that ultimately undermines our commitment to uphold human rights? No wonder the Tories are so keen to try and dump the European Convention of Human Rights as they have no respect of them. The irony in all of this is that it was a Tory who was instrumental in conceiving the ECHR That being Winston Churchil
  14. More than 40,000 British borrowers are in line to get thousands of pounds in compensation after the High Court ruled against former bank Northern Rock in a test case over the wording in past loan documents. The court judgment said about £258m could be paid out in compensation by taxpayers, as the government now owns the part of the bank that made the loans. The amount is more than Northern Rock’s highest estimates. The payments will go to 41,000 former Northern Rock customers - at an average of £6,300 each - and are likely to prompt other banks and the regulator to double-check whether any past loans were incorrectly worded. The High Court ruling released on Wednesday was against Northern Rock Asset Management (NRAM), the "bad bank" of Northern Rock that was nationalised in 2008. NRAM effectively brought the legal claim against itself to test whether documents issued to customers under previous "Together" mortgages were incorrect and if it owed compensation. NRAM is considering whether to appeal the ruling. Subject to that appeal, it is expected to offer compensation to the affected customers without them needing to apply through the courts. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/11285163/Former-Northern-Rock-customers-set-for-258m-payback-after-court-ruling.html Full ruling here: http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/judgments/nram-plc-v-mcadam-hartley/
  15. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OcH4ZYDfGk
  16. Hey guys, recently the shop I work at has had a few issues and I'm hoping to know where I (and a couple others) stand with things. Looking through my paperwork re; issues recently I can't find a copy of my contract. I also do not remember if I ever signed one (I may or may not have). Iirc they have 3 months from me starting to issue me a copy (if I did sign one). If I DIDNT sign one, under what terms am I actually working if anything came to a head? On the above note, several times recently in conversation it's come up that 'staff must be flexible' regarding their hours and that it's stated in our contracts. Without having my contract to hand I've no way of telling if this is true, nor whether there's any stated definition of flexible. Would there be anything that would be standard for this definition?
  17. Hi, I received a penalty notice as my parking ticket was in the foot well when I returned to my car. Here's the notice & ticket: I then challenged the ticket following an example letter used successfully here (http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?389602-Have-a-local-authority-parking-ticket). This was my challenge description: "I would like to appeal the penalty charge served upon me. Enclosed is a copy of the Pay & Display ticket that I purchased and displayed for inspection. It can clearly be seen that I paid the appropriate fee and that the ticket was valid when the officer inspected my vehicle. Unfortunately, at some point during my absence from the vehicle, the ticket somehow became dislodged from where it had been clearly displayed and fell into the foot well. I accept that your officer could not have known this and acted accordingly. However, now that the ticket has been presented for inspection it is clear that I did not avoid payment of the parking fee or that I had parked beyond time paid for. The only purpose a ticket needs to be displayed is to enable an officer to distinguish between those that have paid for parking and those that have not and those who have exceeded the time paid for. The ticket produced clearly shows that had your officer seen my ticket at the time of inspection that there would be no need to serve a penalty charge notice. The only remaining issue is whether the fact that the ticket was not clearly displayed at the time of inspection warrants the council taking a hard line and upholding the penalty charge. I believe that for the council to take such a stance would be contrary to the advice of the DfT and the Secretary of State. As a valid ticket has been presented for inspection it is clear to any reasonable person that it would not be in the public interest to penalise a person who paid the required fee and did nothing to the detriment of the public interest. I cannot think of a more appropriate situation where paragraph 85 applies than this. I therefore politely request that the council act fairly and proportionately in this matter and exercise their discretion sensibly and reasonably by cancelling this penalty charge. It would be best for all if we can resolve this without the need to seek independent adjudication." I have now received the following response from Hackney: Does anyone have any advice on whether this is worth pursuing - I wouldn't be able to take any time off work, so if that was going to be a requirement for challenging this further, it's not really an option for me. That said, I do feel like this is really unfair and am keen to pursue on principle. Appreciate any help! Many thanks Simon
  18. Hi all just thought this would make a topic for discussion please follow the link read then comment http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/charities-very-worried-after-leak-suggests-tories-plan-to-tax-disabled-benefits-if-reelected-10142070.html?cmpid=facebook-post or http://www.newsfixboard.com/t8724-charities-very-worried-after-leak-suggests-tories-plan-to-tax-disabled-benefits-if-re-elected
  19. Received notification through the post today from my electricity supplier SSE informing me that I had been selected to be one of the first to have my meter replaced by a smart meter. This was despite me having informed them 18 months ago that under no circumstances would I entertain having one fitted. The publicity makes a lot of all the benefits to customers and suppliers, and used phrases such as the Government has said that ALL homes will be fitted with meters where possible by 2020. What was more concerning was that when I contacted the call centre listed to reaffirm my intention to opt out of the scheme, (which they did have a record of), the call centre operator still reiterated that I would have to have one by 2020. I have logged a complaint with SSE concerning the false information being provided and the lack of any mention that acceptance of these devices is not mandatory. I'm all for anyone who wants one taking advantage of the offer should they believe that in their circumstances that to have one would be beneficial, but DON'T lie to customers if they wish to reserve the right to decline.
  20. In November 2013 I took my 53 plate Renault Laguna 2.0 Privilege (petrol) in for service and MOT at my local Kwik Fit (KF) branch. I left with a bill of just shy of £1400 which included the fitting of a new catalytic converter and associated sensor and box totaling £451.80 inc VAT. I had cause to return the vehicle to them approximately a month later as engine noise had increased and my petrol consumption had gone up - I was now getting 25 MPG instead of the 31 MPG I was getting beforehand. The fitting of the exhaust was checked and I was assured that everything was in order – no explanation could be given for the increase in fuel usage despite having paid £24 for a fuel additive which was supposed to make the car more fuel efficient. During the last twelve months I have noticed a marked deterioration in both performance and fuel efficiency in the vehicle when compared to the previous year. On 24th November 2014, at the recommendation of my brother-in-law, I took my Laguna to the garage he used (CSC) for an MoT and interim service. Rather surprisingly (or not) it failed on exhaust emissions. In discussions with the CSC manager, he told me that the car hadn't "just failed", it had failed miserably! He went on to state that he was very concerned with the emission figures which had led to the vehicle failing it’s MoT in 2013 at KF. I always take the previous year’s MoT certificate and paperwork with me when I go for an MoT in order to give the mechanics a chance to check over previous work from the previous year and to see that any advisory items had been complied with. The manager explained that in his opinion, twelve months ago, the car had failed it’s MoT due to the exhaust emissions but not because of a faulty catalytic converter, but due to a problem somewhere within the engine which needed to be investigated. He suspected that Kwik Fit had taken the easy option and change the exhaust system in an attempt to solve the problem rather than to investigate any underlying cause. Comparing the 2013 levels to the levels obtained when tested this year, they indicated that the underlying cause was still present and had not been cured by the fitting of the new exhaust, sensor and box in 2013. This raises the question as to how the figures on the pass certificate were obtained as in his opinion it was impossible for readings to go from so high, to so low, back to so high in just twelve months, particularly when the car had only done 5515 miles in the year. In case you're interested, I have copied the fail and pass readings onto an Excel spreadsheet and have attached it to this post. On my way home from the MoT testing station at CSC, I called in to Kwik Fit, about half a mile from where I live to speak to them to see if they could offer any explanation for the exhaust emissions problem and spoke to the manager. He told me that he would stand by the paperwork I had and when I suggested that I visit VOSA to see what they had to say, he told me that if I wanted to, I could. However, I believe that to be a final resort only if Kwik Fit fail to provide a satisfactory solution in that my car had a problem which they attempted to fix and failed. They sold me parts which I did not need and then, rather than further investigate a problem they were aware of, issued a MoT certificate and took my money. Furthermore, and I feel really dumb here, they told me in 2013 that my shock absorbers were leaking (but were making no noise when I went over speed bumps and the car drove really smoothly) and that my brakes looked corroded at the back. Their eventual bill came to just a couple of quid under £1400. I am now questioning whether ANY of this work needed doing. 24/11/2014 – 1310 hrs I telephoned Kwik Fit Head Office and asked to be put through to Customer Service / complaints department where I spoke to a very helpful lady. I outlined the problem I was having regarding the exhaust emissions (no point in blitzing them from the start, I figured) and she said that she would pass my details on to Andy Michael, Regional Manager who would contact me within the next three days. For whatever reason, I never received a call from Mr Michael or any other representative from Kwik Fit despite leaving both my landline and mobile telephone numbers 27/11/2014 At the suggestion of CSC, I returned to Kwik Fit to ask what could be done to rectify the ongoing problem and the manager there offered to replace the catalytic converter as it was still under warranty. I figured that if Kwik Fit fitted a new Cat to the car, at least we would see if it had the same remarkable effect as it did the previous year. I booked the car in (rather nervously) for first thing the next morning. 28/11/2014 The fitting of the catalytic converter was carried out and having put the car onto the emissions testing machine, I was told that with the new catalytic converter on the car, the emissions were just within acceptable parameters, but would definitely pass it’s MoT. They were unable/unwilling to provide me with a copy of the readings from the emissions test carried out that day as they only provided those details when they were actually Mot-ing a car. I was surprised that having taken the car in at 0830, I didn’t receive a phone call to say the car was ready until 1630hrs. Not very kwik eh? 01/12/2014 The car was returned to CSC for a retest and it duly failed the emissions test with readings almost as bad as the previous week. It was noted that the mileage driven between the Kwik Fit test and the CSC Testing station was 55. It was clear that the underlying problem was still present and at the request of CSC, I left the car with them until the following day so they could attempt to determine what the problem was, something which KF should have done a year previously. 02/12/2014 I collected the car from CSC and the manager explained that they had had a look over the car for obvious problems, but had reached the point where they were going to have to start charging me. He said that rather than just try and find the solution by trial and error, which would possibly end up with me having a big bill to pay, the car should be referred to the main Renault dealer in Birmingham where they have specialist diagnostic equipment. 04/12/2014 I dropped the car off at 0800 at Renault Birmingham this morning and spent a happy half an hour discussing emissions with a very interested mechanic with wide eyes!! So that's where I'm up to. I've had the same thing told me now by 5 mechanics concerning my MoT pass in 2013, lets see how many of you look at the figures and come to the same conclusion (I'm not accusing anyone of anything - yet!). My two concerns now are the bill I'm going to get from Renault and what do I do regarding Kwik Fit? Any advice would be gratefully appreciated.
  21. http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/unemployed-must-become-scouts-2013093079926
  22. I own a Vauxhall corsa vxr nurburgring edition. Vauxhalls flagship. the car is 2 years old on a 62reg the mileage is 4000 car cost is £18k I started to notice a clunk from the gearbox I went to my local Vauxhall dealership in July .Penfolds Lewisham South East. and Left My Car In Penfolds Repair Garage to be Diagnosed. I got a call the same day from Chris the service desk at penfolds and he told mey car has low compression cylinder 4 and a Vauxhall engineer has to be send out to inspect my car. and penfolds was sure is was due to engine remapping - decided to Void my warranty on my Standard Car. I decided to call Vauxhall customer care department/ Vauxhalls head office in Luton and spoke to a representative I Explained the problem my car has and the dealership voiding the warranty and they could not help me and stop the dealership from voiding my warranty I decided to call them again the following day and I managed to speak with the regional manager Vauxhall Luton. he told me my car's warranty should not be voided on a car with such low millage and with no signs of modifications he assigned a engineer to inspect my car and told penfolds to continue diagnosing the problem. 3 weeks later no engineer showed up and Vauxhall customer care representative called me and said iv got to sign a disclaimer for Vauxhall to send off my ECU Unit To Germany to Be Inspected and can take 2 weeks to come back with results to see if the ECU is standard and not remapped. this is outrageous because all Vauxhall wanted to do is find excuses not to fix my car because im a young lad with a vxr and the dealership automatically say the problem is due to the way I drive or that I have remapped my engine. it is terrible the way Vauxhall have dealt with me and the time It has taken to get things moving is just not good enough. 5 weeks later my Ecu Arrived at the dealership from Germany when it should of only been 2 weeks and the test results was CLEAR ECU STANDERD Vauxhall was very embarrassed and assured me my car will be fixed but they have still not accepted the warranty claim and fix my car and they have to send a engineer out to inspect my car what I would say they mean find more excuses to not fix my car. now after 7 weeks my car being in Vauxhalls dealership I had a phone call from Vauxhalls customer care and she said I have to sign another disclaimer for the dealership to strip my engine and they will send a engineer to inspect my car. now its the end of September my cars been in the dealership near enough 3 months and Vauxhall do not have a clue what is wrong with my car and they have rejected my warranty claim to fix my car. and have put me aside now because of all the steering reclaims Vauxhall. are to busy to talk to me let alone fix my car. after 11weeks I have had nothing but Vauxhall to tell me false lies and excuses to get out of paying to rectify the problems and fix my car avoid this company with all means my car is 100% standard with 4000 genuine miles and still in manufactures warranty and still Vauxhall will not fix a common problem of cylinder 4 low compression/misfire also engine oil is leaking from engine head and Vauxhall do not have no clue what is wrong with my car and refuse to honour my warranty please email me for any questions on this and I will be happy to help [removed]
  23. Took the car into Crawley Branch this afternoon, Front passenger tyre had a gouge in it and spare had a punture. On the website it stated the arrowspeed was £45.00 fitted I turned up without booking an appointment and asked them to check all my tyres, all within legal limit and he said they were fine, I HAD to point out the huge hole showing through to the metal. He then advised me I needed a new tyre and the spare fixed. (Awesome on his part as I had already told him that was what I wanted) I asked how much this would be and was informed £151. Pointing out that the new trye was only £45, I enquired how fixing a puncture in the spare would cost £106, as I could have 3 new tyres for £135. The response was, I'm not in the trade and didn't know what I was doing. PLEASE, PLEASE PLEASE look elsewhere when you require new tryes.
×
×
  • Create New...